1 / 14

NASA Airborne Science Program Joint Airborne Science Sensor Integration Working Group (JASSIWG)

NASA Airborne Science Program Joint Airborne Science Sensor Integration Working Group (JASSIWG) Presentation to ICCAGRA. M. Gaunce NASA Ames Earth Science Project Office 21 October 2008. Goals. Improve Science Investigator access to NASA Airborne Platforms by…

nolan-avila
Download Presentation

NASA Airborne Science Program Joint Airborne Science Sensor Integration Working Group (JASSIWG)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NASA Airborne Science Program Joint Airborne Science Sensor Integration Working Group (JASSIWG) Presentation to ICCAGRA M. Gaunce NASA Ames Earth Science Project Office 21 October 2008

  2. Goals Improve Science Investigator access to NASA Airborne Platforms by… 1. Coordinating NASA aircraft instrument integration requirements across Airborne Science platforms. 2. Increase information availability. - Instrument design. - More demand for aircraft. 3. Generating common data flows across centers. 4. Reducing or eliminating redundant or unnecessary integration requirements.

  3. Background • Study initiated by ASP Mgr in mid-FY07. • Joint Airborne Science Sensor Integration Working Group (JASSIWG) formed. • 1st WG team mtg in Oct 07. • WG agreed on three initial products (Phase A). • FY08 activity developed initial products, follow-on activities, and summary report. • Review & concurrence of Phase A products currently underway. • 2nd WG mtg late Jan/early Feb 09 at DFRC.

  4. Study Platforms

  5. FY 08 Accomplishments • Working Group kick-off, charter, platforms, initial products. • 2. Review of existing Experimenter Handbooks and PDPs. • Generated draft products. • Common Payload Data Package. • Platform Performance & Design Characteristics. • Standard Experimenter Handbook format. • Aerospace Technical Report. • Working review of draft report prior to issue. • Distribution to all stakeholders.

  6. Future Plans • FY09 • Complete and implement Phase A. • Community review and feedback of products. • Post/host documents on ASP web site. • Initiate Phase B. • Review and extract subsystem requirements by platform. • Review center engineering processes & reviews. • Assess based on desirability and LOE to make common (“benefit” analysis). • FY10 • Complete Phase B requirements assessment. • Initiate Phase C. • Develop common design requirements & guidelines document for NASA airborne science platforms.

  7. Phase B Analysis Approach - NotionalAircraft Design Requirements Assessment • Extract requirements from platform Experimenter Handbooks and other center engineering documentation. • “Bin” requirements into categories and store in database. • Assessment Categories (this still needs work): • Requirement • Rationale • Heritage • Heritage Type • Subsystem Type • Commonality Ranking • Preliminary cross-platform comparative and commonality “cost-benefit” analyses.

  8. Phase B Analysis Approach - NotionalAircraft Design Requirements Assessment Study Platforms: DC-8, ER-2, G-3, Global Hawk, WB-57, P-3, B-200, S-3, Twin Otter, Learjet 25, and SIERRA. Subsystem Type: Mechanical, Electrical, Thermal, Safety Heritage Type: 1. Flight Safety 2. Industry Standard 3. Agency Standard 4. Center Standard 5. Best Practice/Lessons Learned/Common Sense Commonality Ranking: 1. Unique to system, fundamental flight safety involved (not likely to be changes or modified). 2. Possible to change or standardize, but with ‘significant’ effort/resource. 3. Possible to change or standardize with reasonable or readily achievable effort/resource (low-hanging fruit). 4. Obsolete or superseded, should be deleted to changed to standard practice. 5. Standard practice, no change required.

  9. Aircraft Design Requirements AssessmentExample

  10. Back-up Charts

  11. Overall JASSIWG Plan Phase A: common information requirements Phase B: aircraft requirements evaluation Phase C: common requirements document FY 08 FY 09 FY 10

  12. Common Payload Data Package Phase A Product 1 1. Incorporates information needs sufficient to satisfy experiment requirements of all platforms (union of all data requirements). 2. One document that PI can carry platform to platform and will serve needs of all platform engineering / integration. 3. Common PDP information is union of needs for all platforms. 4. Does not modify any platform requirements! 5. Produced by PIs, for Centers, using HTML-based application. 6. Input, review, and concurrence from platforms and PIs.

  13. Platform Performance & Design Characteristics • Phase A Product 2

  14. Standard Experimenter Handbook Phase A Product 3 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Aircraft Description 3.0 Payload Accommodations 4.0 Environment 5.0 Communications, Navigation, and Data Acquisition 6.0 Payload Design Planning, Engineering, and Integration Processes 7.0 Payload Design and Construction Requirements 8.0 Aircraft – Payload Interfaces 9.0 Flight Operations 10.0 Ground Operations Appendices

More Related